[A]bout a dozen newly unified school districts came into being Monday after a last-ditch attempt to temporarily halt forced mergers under Act 46 was rejected by the state’s highest court.
Thirty-three school boards in the so-called “Athens” lawsuit – named for the first plaintiff district – asked the Vermont Supreme Court for an emergency stay in late June to press pause on the state-mandated consolidations while the justices weighed the merits of their appeal.
In a one-page ruling issued June 25, the court said no. In order to obtain the stay, the requesting party must prove that the stay is necessary to prevent “irreparable injury,” that it would not harm other parties, and it would serve the “best interests of the public.”
“Upon consideration of these factors, we deny appellants’ motion for stay or for injunctive relief,” the court wrote in a ruling signed by all five Supreme Court justices.
The court, which is weighing an appeal challenging the consolidation law on a host of constitutional and procedural grounds, could still ultimately decide in favor of the independent plaintiff schools boards, which still exist for the purposes of the lawsuit. But for now, unified, regional boards will be expected to take over the business of running the schools in the roughly 50 districts that had until now resisted merging together.
Between consolidations that took place during the law’s earlier phases, when districts were given tax incentives to pick their partners and merge, and those imposed by the State Board of Education in November, Vermont has seen a net reduction of 156 school districts.
Opponents of forced consolidations have fought for nearly a year, in the courts and in the Legislature, to find a way to put a moratorium on mergers, which were set by law to go into effect July 1. They had argued unified districts, once in place, would be impossible to untangle, even if the courts ultimately found the controversial law unconstitutional.
Both the House and Senate passed their own versions of bills to delay mergers, but lawmakers from both chambers were ultimately unable to reach a deal on compromise legislation before the end of the session in May.
And in March, Superior Court Judge Robert Mello also rejected a request for such a stay, writing in a lengthy order that the plaintiffs had “not shown a substantial likelihood that they will prevail on the merits of their claim that the board’s actions in implementing Acts 46 and 49 are unconstitutional.” Mello ultimately dismissed the case on all counts, and the suit is now before the Supreme Court on appeal.
Assistant Attorney General David Boyd, who is leading the state’s defense in the lawsuit, said the Attorney General’s Office was “pleased” with the high court’s ruling.
“A stay at this point would have been disruptive for school districts throughout the state,” he said.
But unlike Mello’s March order, which discussed at length core arguments at the heart of the lawsuit, the Supreme Court’s order provides few clues about how the justices feel about the larger case.
“One of the factors the court considered is likelihood of success on the merits. But the court did not break out the individual factors or discuss them separately so it’s hard to specifically read too much into the ruling,” Boyd said.
David Kelley, a Craftsbury Common attorney volunteering on the school board’s case, remains optimistic his side’s case is strong.
“I think there are so many different parts of the law, that as far as I’m concerned shouldn’t pass legal review,” he said.
But like Boyd, he thinks it would be unwise to read much into the high court’s latest ruling.
“I’ve been around long enough that when you go to court, anyone that tries to predict the outcome hasn’t been around long enough,” he said.
The two sides are still discussing a briefing schedule, but Kelley said he expected oral arguments before the court to take place some time in the fall.
